“Look at it this way,” Ford Prefect had said, “fruit and berries on strange planets either make you live or make you die. Therefore the point at which to start toying with them is when you’re going to die if you don’t. That way you stay ahead. The secret of healthy hitch-hiking is to eat junk food.”
They looked at the pile that lay in their path with suspicion. It looked so good it made them almost dizzy with hunger.
“Look at it this way,” said Ford, “er …”
“Yes?” said Arthur.
“I’m trying to think of a way of looking at it which means we get to eat it,” said Ford.
Douglas Adams: The Restaurant at the end of the Universe 1980
Some might suggest RS McCain’s series on the clashes between “Transgender” activists and radical lesbians and their anger at Stacy’s attention might be amusing and baffling in its moral contradictions, but it holds nothing on the great contradictions concerning Abortion and the media as evidenced by this article in the Independent in London.
The illegal abortion of female foetuses solely to ensure that families have sons is widely practised within some ethnic communities in Britain and has resulted in significant shortfalls in the proportion of girls, according to an investigation by The Independent.
The practice of sex-selective abortion is now so commonplace that it has affected the natural 50:50 balance of boys to girls within some immigrant groups and has led to the “disappearance” of between 1,400 and 4,700 females from the national census records of England and Wales, we can reveal.
Like RSM in the Transgender/Radical Lesbian business I think the entire debate is silly. I categorically oppose abortion because it’s a moral wrong that kills deliberately kills an innocent child but also like Stacy I find the clash fascinating particularly when you examine the arguments:
our deeper statistical analysis of data from the 2011 National Census has shown widespread discrepancies in the sex ratio of children in some immigrant families, which can only be easily explained by women choosing to abort female foetuses in the hope of becoming quickly pregnant again with a boy. The findings will reignite the debate over whether pregnant women should be legally allowed to know the sex of their babies following ultrasound scans at 13 weeks.
Note the contradiction in this quote. When referring to pregnant woman and ultrasounds the woman are carrying “babies” but when they are talking abortion that same children becomes a “foetuses” or fetus as we would say in America.
The clear implication is the humanity of any child, the personhood is totally subjective as determined by the mother.
Tell me how is that any different from this scene from the movie Django Unchained? (Language Warning)
In the movie the value of D’Artagnan life is totally subjective to the will of Calvin Candie. When Dr. Schultz is willing to pay $500 for him, he has value, when Django stops him and says do what you want with your property the dogs tear him apart with no thought at all.
Now the argument is pretty simple to my mind as D’Artagnan is a human being the killing of him in that situation was murder and while the law of the time and place didn’t recognize D’Artagnan humanity, it was a fact no matter what the law said.
(In this sense the character Django was less moral than Dr. King Schultz. Dr. Schultz was willing to risk suspicion to save D’Artagnan’s life, but because of his desire for his wife Django was willing to let D’Artagnan die a horrible death if it would serve his purpose but that’s a post for another day.)
To me the sex selective argument is the same and just as simple.
Abortion kills an innocent child, since killing an innocent child is evil, sex selective abortion is also evil.
But for those who support abortion and laws forbidding sex selective abortion the intellectual hoops become precarious?
Consider: If the mother decided she wanted an abortion because she didn’t want the child because of economic reasons, personal reasons, a fit of pique or because it happens to be dark of Tuesday it’s a perfectly acceptable right that must be defended at all costs.
But if that unborn child happens to be female then it’s wrong, illegal and a moral quandary and while the law supposedly would be the same if they were killing boys functionally nobody seems to care. (until of course some day a genetic test confirms said boy will be homosexual THEN it will be not only a moral quandary, but a hate crime)
Now perhaps I’m biased, but it would seem to me that my position that abortion based on financial, social, sexism, racism, sexual orientation, cultural reasons or to pay off your losses from a game of Fizzbin is uniformly the evil murder of a child, is not only more logical but requires a lot fewer ethical hoops to traverse.
But then again the goal of those who support abortion is not ethical consistency, it is to justify an inherently evil decision made for convince or profit (and for those of you screaming “Planned Parenthood is a non-profit read this) . They are Ford & Arthur looking for an excuse to eat those berries.
So while one might take some ironic amusement in the entire debate, just like one might laugh at the “bag” scene in Django (Language Warning) …
…I have very little respect for either side in this debate, but if it leads to fewer abortions and thus fewer children murdered the I shall prefer one side of the argument vs the other.
Update: No ethical calculations for NBC or Democrats on abortion, just cash:
Everybody knows Davis is ultimately doomed. However, by turning Davis into a national celebrity for “a woman’s right to choose” and then running her for governor, Democrats turned her into a magic fundraising machine. This won’t turn Texas “blue,” but it will force Republicans to spend more money than usual to elect Greg Abbott governor. And this is a national Democrat Party strategy to force Texas GOP donors (who otherwise might be funding Republican candidates in “swing” districts around the country) to keep their money “at home.”
We’ve moved a tad since this morning Only $167 is left to go to this week’s paycheck that mans just 7 tip jar hits of $25 (actually $24) will get us to a full paycheck for 2014
I would appreciate your help.
Then I’ll worry about catching up for the month.
Also if we can get 57 1/4 more subscribers @ at $20 a month the bills the problem will be solved on a more permanent basis.
It won’t cover CPAC but it will do all the base bills and that’s what counts
Can you be one of them?